monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

why side with Trump just because you are conservative. Its an example of political ineptitude on his behalf. Had he not opnd his bigass mouth at the very start to assert that he would "keep all Muslims outta the US" Im sure he wouldnt be faced with the "unfortunate limitations placed upon him by the US Constitution". You can blame a judge all you wish but the entirety falls upon his head for not shutting- the- ****- up when that would be the most expedient path.

Who Undercut President Trump’s Travel Ban? Candidate Trump

WASHINGTON — Rarely do a presidential candidate’s own words so definitively haunt his presidency.

For the second time in two months, two federal judges on Wednesday refused to allow President Trump to impose a travel ban, citing his campaign rhetoric as evidence of an improper desire to prevent Muslims from entering the United States.

The judges’ stunning rebukes were a vivid example of how Mr. Trump’s angry, often xenophobic rallying cries during the campaign — which were so effective in helping to get him elected — have become legal and political liabilities now that he is in the Oval Office.

It is a lesson that presidents usually learn quickly: Difficult and controversial issues can easily be painted as black-and-white during a long campaign, but they are often more complicated for those who are in a position to govern.

That is especially true for Mr. Trump’s bellicose remarks about immigrants, which animated his upstart presidential campaign but now threaten to get in the way of his broader agenda for a health care overhaul, tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

It all seemed so simple before.

Five days after terrorists in California killed 14 people in December 2015, Mr. Trump whipped up his supporters at a rally by vowing to impose a complete ban on entry by Muslims “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

The crowd roared its approval.

Later in the campaign, Mr. Trump backed away from calling for a total Muslim ban. But a judge in Hawaii who ruled on Wednesday appears to have concluded that Mr. Trump’s true motivations could be found by looking at his earlier remarks.

“These plainly worded statements,” wrote Judge Derrick K. Watson of Federal District Court in Honolulu, “betray the executive order’s stated secular purpose.”

Hours later, a second judge in Maryland also ruled against the core portions of the new travel ban, also citing Mr. Trump’s promise as a candidate to enact a ban on entry into the United States by Muslims.

[...]

The debate over immigration restrictions in the United States isn’t a new topic. A quick review of American immigration policies shows that legal cases over restrictions date back to the 1880s, and various groups have been barred entry to the United States since then.

A series of Supreme Court decisions has established that the political branches of the federal government—Congress and the President—share responsibility for immigration. In many cases, Congress passes immigration laws enforced by the executive branch; in other cases, the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion to implement immigration policies.

President Trump cites powers granted to him by Congress under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 as allowing the President to place temporary restrictions on immigration based on country of origin.

In the past, tests and criteria have been frequent factors in considering admission to this country. And adherents to some political and moral philosophies have consistently been barred from entry to America.

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Acts in 1889 in the case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States, where the Court said that immigration matters were part of the plenary power shared by the legislative and executive branches and disputes over those laws “are not questions for judicial determination."

The Immigration Act of 1891 expanded the list of “undesirables” to include “idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge,” persons suffering from certain contagious disease, felons, persons convicted of other crimes or misdemeanors related to “moral turpitude,” and polygamists. In 1903, an immigration act signed by President Theodore Roosevelt added anarchists to the banned list and the act allowed immigration officials to ask people about their political beliefs during the questioning process.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday went to bat for President Donald Trump, defending the administration's proposed cuts to the State Department's budget.

"Clearly the level of spending that the State Department has been undertaking, particularly in this past year, is simply not sustainable," Tillerson said in Tokyo, according to Reuters. "As time goes by, there will be fewer military conflicts that the U.S. will be directly engaged in."

The judges’ stunning rebukes were a vivid example of how Mr. Trump’s angry, often xenophobic rallying cries during the campaign — which were so effective in helping to get him elected — have become legal and political liabilities now that he is in the Oval Office.

The constitution directly grants the right to regulate immigration to congress

But then that is the nature of blind hatred.

I defy each of those here in this forum who have expressed their hatred for Trump and his presidency to find one thing that he is proposing or has done that would benefit the United States of America, it's people, it's standing or security in the world...Just ONE.

But this is more than a slow start; two months in, this presidency is a rolling disaster.

What’s going on? The administration isn’t failing because of some brilliant strategy on Democrats’ part. They’re being weighed down by problems of their own making. In isolation each problem would be difficult but ultimately manageable; together they’re giving the administration nothing but bad days. Let’s take them each in turn...

He's right out of Central Casting.

This is just weird.

Quote:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday went to bat for President Donald Trump, defending the administration's proposed cuts to the State Department's budget.

"Clearly the level of spending that the State Department has been undertaking, particularly in this past year, is simply not sustainable," Tillerson said in Tokyo, according to Reuters. "As time goes by, there will be fewer military conflicts that the U.S. will be directly engaged in."

TPM

This proposed budget jacks up spending for the Pentagon because there will be fewer military conflicts and concerns ahead? And it slashes spending for State because there's an undeniable whiff of woldwide peace in the air and because the rest of the world is noticeably more and more pro-America thus prior State functions are unnecessary? And current levels of State expenditure will maybe bankrupt the nation or maybe cause this administration to cut social welfare programs and the economics here are "simple"? And after 50 days, Tillerson is already so knowledgeable about State that he can see what prior State leaders and officials with years of experience with State could not?

Trump tells Michigan governor: Come take a photo “even though you didn't endorse me ... I never forget.”

“Look, if I were a liberal Democrat, people would say I’m the super genius of all time. The super genius of all time.”

“I’m, like, a really smart person.”

The fact is State department budgets have grown in the past decade while the operational effectiveness of the Department has suffered.

The Court, without exception, has sustained Congress' "plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden."

"The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.

Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. . But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.

...the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is the Congress, not this Court."

The problem with the donut eaters is that their entire political beliefs are based on "promises of things to come" and a total denial of things just past.

Political Azheimers.

Sebastian Gorka, President Trump’s top counter-terrorism adviser, is a formal member of a Hungarian far-right group that is listed by the U.S. State Department as having been “under the direction of the Nazi Government of Germany” during World War II, leaders of the organization have told the Forward.

The elite order, known as the Vitézi Rend, was established as a loyalist group by Admiral Miklos Horthy, who ruled Hungary as a staunch nationalist from 1920 to October 1944. A self-confessed anti-Semite, Horthy imposed restrictive Jewish laws prior to World War II and collaborated with Hitler during the conflict. His cooperation with the Nazi regime included the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Nazi hands.

...Gorka’s membership in the organization — if these Vitézi Rend leaders are correct, and if Gorka did not disclose this when he entered the United States as an immigrant — could have implications for his immigration status. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual specifies that members of the Vitézi Rend “are presumed to be inadmissible” to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whatever "rights" to regulate immigration are bestowed upon the legislative and executive branches result from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not grant the right to regulate immigration policy to either Congress or the White House.

But hey, who could possibly complain about activist judges legislating from the bench when you agree with the results, right?

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words"

The Trump administration proposes to kick-start construction of a border wall with $4.1 billion in spending through 2018, an official said Wednesday.

Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the president would request $1.5 billion in a supplemental spending bill and $2.6 billion in his fiscal year 2018 budget.... Despite Trump's repeated campaign promises, the administration does not expect Mexico to pay for the wall. "It's coming out of the treasury," Mulvaney said.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.